Were British cotton entrepreneurs technologically backward? Firm-level evidence on the adoption of ring spinning
I study the slow adoption of ring spinning in Great Britain's cotton industry at the end of the 19th century, which has been used as evidence of British entrepreneurs' declining efficiency and conservatism (Musson, 1959; Aldcroft, 1964; Lazonick, 1981, 1981b). To this purpose I use firm-level data from all of Lancashire's cotton firms over several years. The data are from Worrall's The Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Directory for the years 1885, 1886-1887, 1890, 1894, 1902, and 1910. First, I show that the vertical organization of the industry, with its firms specializing in spinning or weaving, did not act as an impediment to the adoption of the ring spinning technology, as was argued by Lazonick. In particular, I show the following: i) non-integrated firms were the first to adopt rings in Great Britain; ii) the large majority of firms that adopted rings were incumbents; iii) vertically integrated firms that were spinning only either twist or weft yarn were still in existence in 1910; and iv) only a negligible number of firms changed their organizational structure upon adopting ring spinning. I also show that a large fraction of firms installed very small numbers of ring spindles upon the adoption of ring spinning, suggesting that firms were slowly adopting ring spindles to replace old mule spindles rather than transitioning over to ring spinning at a single point in time. Then, I show that the rate at which vertically integrated firms adopted rings suddenly accelerated after 1902. I interpret this as evidence that British entrepreneurs were fully aware of the technological complementarities between rings and automatic looms. These complementarities could only be fully exploited by vertically integrated firms.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lars G. Sandberg, 1969. "American Rings and English Mules: The Role of Economic Rationality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 25-43.
- Huberman, Michael, 1990. "Vertical Disintegration in Lancashire: A Comment on Temin," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 683-690, September.
- Gary R. Saxonhouse & Gavin Wright, 1984. "New Evidence on the Stubborn English Mule and the Cotton Industry, 1878-1920," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 37(4), pages 507-519, November.
- Timothy Leunig, 2003.
"A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago,"
Economic History Review,
Economic History Society, vol. 56(1), pages 90-117, 02.
- Tim Leunig, 2003. "A British industrial success: productivity in the Lancashire and New England cotton spinning industries a century ago," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 494, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Musson, A. E., 1959. "The Great Depression in Britain, 1873–1896: a Reappraisal," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(02), pages 199-228, June.
- Leunig, Timothy, 2001.
"NEW ANSWERS TO OLD QUESTIONS: EXPLAINING THE SLOW ADOPTION OF RING SPINNING IN LANCASHIRE, 1880 l913,"
The Journal of Economic History,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 61(02), pages 439-466, June.
- Tim Leunig, 2001. "New answers to old questions : explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Tim Leunig, 2000. "New answers to old questions: explaining the slow adoption of ring spinning in Lancashire, 1880-1913," Economic History Working Papers 22378, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
- William Lazonick, 1984. "Rings and Mules in Britain: Reply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 393-398.
- Mokyr, Joel, 2001. "The rise and fall of the factory system: technology, firms, and households since the industrial revolution," Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-45, December.
- Saxonhouse, Gary R. & Wright, Gavin, 2010. "National Leadership and Competing Technological Paradigms: The Globalization of Cotton Spinning, 1878–1933," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 70(03), pages 535-566, September.
- William Lazonick, 1987. "Stubborn mules: some comments," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 40(1), pages 80-86, 02.
- Temin, Peter, 1990. "Product Quality and Vertical Integration in the Early Cotton Textile Industry: A Reply," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(03), pages 691-692, September.
- McCloskey, Donald N. & Sandberg, Lars G., 1971. "From damnation to redemption: Judgments on the late victorian entrepreneur," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 89-108.
- Lazonick, William H., 1981. "Production Relations, Labor Productivity, and Choice of Technique: British and U.S. Cotton Spinning," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(03), pages 491-516, September.
- William Lazonick, 1981. "Factor Costs and the Diffusion of Ring Spinning in Britain Prior to World War I," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 96(1), pages 89-109.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:exehis:v:47:y:2010:i:4:p:487-504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.